Four state legislatures have now written into law what the Sitzer-Burnett settlement forbids MLS participants to do: show a home to a buyer who has not signed a written agreement. Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming and Oklahoma did not wait for the courts or for NAR. They legislated. A fifth, West Virginia, pushed a bill through its House before it stalled in the Senate.

This is the first organized political rejection of the settlement’s practice changes, and it lands squarely on the MLS. The settlement binds participants through MLS rules. State law binds licensees through the license. In four states those two systems now point in opposite directions, and the MLS is the institution left holding the enforcement problem.

What the settlement agreed

Removing offers of compensation from the MLS got the headlines. The written buyer agreement changed the daily workflow of every buyer agent in the country.

Under the practice changes that took effect August 17, 2024, MLS participants working with a buyer must sign a written agreement with that buyer before touring a home. The parties agreed on four core terms:

  • Timing. The agreement is signed before the buyer tours a home, in person or by live virtual tour. Talking with an agent at an open house, or asking about services, does not trigger it.
  • Compensation. The agreement states the amount or rate the buyer’s broker will receive, in terms that are objectively ascertainable and not open-ended. “Whatever the seller offers” does not qualify.
  • Ceiling. The broker cannot collect compensation from any source that exceeds the amount in the agreement.
  • Disclosure. The agreement states conspicuously that broker fees are not set by law and are fully negotiable.

The rule has one escape valve, and it runs in one direction. NAR’s FAQ says the agreement is required before touring “unless state law requires a written buyer agreement earlier in time.” The exception yields to states that demand an agreement sooner. It is silent on states that say no agreement is required before a showing.

Judge Stephen Bough granted final approval to the NAR and HomeServices settlements on November 26, 2024. The Eighth Circuit unanimously upheld Sitzer-Burnett on August 19, 2026, rejecting seven appeals that challenged its scope, fairness and practice changes, and issued its mandate October 2. As between the parties, the rule is final. The states were never parties.

$711 million, and the checks have not gone out

The industry paid. The homesellers have not been paid. As of September 30, 2026, the Morgan Stanley accounts holding commission settlement money carried $711.25 million, according to a bank declaration plaintiffs filed October 29. Those accounts earned $17.7 million in interest in the first nine months of 2026 alone, roughly $2 million a month. Another $5.8 million left the accounts in that period, and the filing does not say where it went. No broad distribution to the class has been confirmed.

The court’s patience is visibly thin. In May, Judge Bough cut off payments to JND Legal Administration, the claims administrator, while he weighed an audit of its bills. On July 27 he appointed two special masters, Chris Hellums and Randall Sansom, to “facilitate the fair administration of settlement to the class” and to help class members understand what they are being charged for notice, claims review and distribution. When JND moved to disqualify Hellums, Bough refused, noting that JND had not fully answered questions about vendor rebates. Nearly two years after final approval, a settlement sold as relief for consumers has produced a growing pile of interest income and a fight over administrator invoices.

That gap is political fuel. A settlement that rewrote how every buyer in America signs up with an agent, while the sellers it was meant to compensate are still waiting, is an easy target for a state senator.

Four states have legislated against the rule

Alabama moved first, in 2025. Three more followed in the 2026 sessions. Each statute says, in its own words, that a signed buyer agreement is not a precondition for showing a home.

State Law Status What it says
Oklahoma SB 1217 Signed May 2026; in force since Nov. 1, 2026 “A broker shall not be required to enter into a brokerage agreement with a buyer prior to showing real estate.” A managing broker may still require one.
Mississippi SB 2713 Passed both chambers unanimously; signed by Gov. Tate Reeves March 13, 2026; effective July 1, 2026 A signed agreement is required only before listing a home, or before submitting an offer if the agent will be paid for the work.
Wyoming SF0105 Signed by Gov. Mark Gordon March 6, 2026 A customer is not required to sign any written agency agreement to view or tour a home. Creates legal definitions of “customer” (no agreement) and “client” (agreement signed).
Alabama HB 230 (Act 2025-59) Signed March 2025; effective April 18, 2025 No agreement is required before a broker shows a property. One is required before listing or before submitting an offer for the consumer.

West Virginia went furthest on paper. HB 5091 would bar requiring any consumer to sign a buyer’s agency agreement before executing a written offer, and would limit any agreement to the transaction in that offer. It passed the House 80-10 on March 4 and was referred to Senate Judiciary on March 9. That is the last recorded action, and the session ended days later. Oklahoma’s companion bill, SB 1225, carried similar showing language and never moved.

Look at who backed these laws. Mississippi Realtors supported SB 2713, and it cleared both chambers without a dissenting vote. These were not consumer-advocate ambushes. In at least one state, organized real estate went to the capitol to undo a term NAR signed. NAR’s own position concedes the ground: to the extent any state law conflicts with the settlement, it says, state law always takes precedence.

Other states are moving the opposite direction

The map is splitting in two. Since January 1, 2026, Texas has required a license holder to have a written agreement before showing any residential property, or before presenting an offer if nothing is shown. The only alternative is a non-exclusive showing agreement capped at 14 days. A violation is grounds for discipline against the license. Virginia’s 2025 law requires a written agreement with a buyer or tenant before a showing. Oregon and Washington already require written representation agreements, and California has moved the same way.

The result is two regimes. In Texas and Virginia, state law reinforces the settlement and the MLS rule is redundant. In Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming and Oklahoma, state law contradicts it, and the MLS rule stands alone.

What this means for the MLS and the brokerage

NAR’s escape valve points the wrong way. The FAQ excuses compliance only where state law requires an agreement earlier. These four statutes say no agreement is required at all. MLS participants in those states therefore remain bound by the settlement rule, even though their license law says otherwise.

How dangerous that is depends on the drafting.

  • Oklahoma is the safe harbor. The statute says a broker is not required to sign an agreement before showing, then lets each managing broker require one anyway. A brokerage can honor the MLS rule and the statute at the same time.
  • Alabama and Mississippi are defensible. They say an agreement is not legally required. An MLS rule that adds one is stricter than the statute, not contrary to it. But every disciplinary case now invites the argument that the MLS is regulating beyond state law.
  • Wyoming is the live wire. Its statute says a customer is not required to sign any agreement to view or tour a home. If an MLS fines a participant for touring without one, the participant will argue the MLS is enforcing a requirement the legislature prohibited. No court has ruled on it. The first fine will force the question.

For brokerage profitability, the stakes are concrete. The buyer agreement was the broker’s best tool after the settlement because it put compensation in writing before the first door opened. Statutes that let agents tour without one push the compensation conversation to the offer table, where the buyer has the most leverage and the agent has already done the work. Brokerages that let agents drift back into tour-first habits will see buyer-side fee compression and more unpaid showings.

For MLS relevance, the stakes are structural. The MLS is the only institution enforcing the settlement rule. Every legislature that overrides it shifts authority over buyer representation from the MLS to the state real estate commission. If the pattern spreads, the MLS becomes the place where rules are stricter than the law and harder to defend. Organized real estate should not accept that position by default.

Strategic Recommendation for the Board

  1. MLSs in Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming and Oklahoma: have counsel reconcile your buyer agreement rule with state law now, before a disciplinary complaint forces the question. In Wyoming, decide with counsel whether to pause enforcement against conduct the statute protects.
  2. Ask NAR for written guidance on statutes that say an agreement is not required. The current FAQ covers only states that require one earlier.
  3. Brokerages in those states: put your pre-tour policy in writing. Oklahoma’s law explicitly lets the managing broker require an agreement. Use that authority, and do not leave the decision to each agent.
  4. State associations everywhere: be in the room before the next bill is drafted. West Virginia’s sponsors can reintroduce, and other states are watching Alabama’s results. Know where your own association stands before the session opens.

Sources